@comitatenseocc So again, early in history of the game really making lore the forefront equal with the tabletop game. And when you only release an edition every five or so years, yes 2011 is early. Context matters. Fifth edition. When the first edition was almost a different thing
@comitatenseocc I have the Abnett books, I know. But that’s very focused on Inquisition. Specifically from his view. Again. Narrow. The Heresy books are better about lore but that’s the first ones really from the bigger picture. And again. They’re the start of GW really taking lore seriously.
@AileInTheValley@SimplyShae13 I would say the backlash would say otherwise. Even most of the YouTube lore channels agree this was sloppy at best. That’s not a good look. And you would think, after seeing the spark it started, a company would jump on the momentum and ride it with more information
@AileInTheValley@SimplyShae13 You said now I’m arguing they’re not putting out lore fast enough. I said from the start that they’ve had multiple chances to address it. So yes, I’m saying they’ve taken too long. On purpose. And I didn’t give a whole story, that’s for them. But I gave a pretty easy base to work
@AileInTheValley@SimplyShae13 That’s been my argument from the start. They’ve had multiple chances to address the lore. All we got was they’ve always been there. I never complained they were putting lore out too fast. And I didn’t want a Cawl name drop. Hell a short story would have been great
@Brisket_7u@SimplyShae13 Then use all that lore base they’ve been building for the last ten years and explain the retcon. They could have. They chose not to. Most of the 40k retcons are from ten plus years ago a when they started trying to consolidate the lore.
@AileInTheValley@SimplyShae13 The only argument you made was I haven’t given them time. I mentioned they’ve had multiple chances since they’ve put out other media just fine. Now you’re calling me names. Almost always a clear sign that you’ve lost the argument. Well done
@AileInTheValley@SimplyShae13 It was the OFFICIAL GW Twitter. Not some rando. And how have I acted like an ass about this. It’s easy to lump me in with others when you don’t want to make an actual argument. They’ve had months at this point.
@Brisket_7u@SimplyShae13 This is my problem. No one wants to defend the decision from a pure lore standpoint. Even Fabius Bile mentions that he thought making marines only with males was a mistake. The early Custodes are called a brotherhood, taken from the “sons” of nobles.
@comitatenseocc You’ve said that, but haven’t shown me how. And you still haven’t answered the main argument. The lore change was sloppy and lazy. And yes lore has become far more important than it used to be, whole chunks of the fandom are here just for the books.
@AileInTheValley@SimplyShae13 What are you talking about. The point of saying it’s lazy is to say it should have been done better. They had time to think about a video but couldn’t be bothered to mention how female Custodes show up? When asked they say. They’ve always been there?! No lead up or anything